I received the ok to use NIST Cloud Computing documents as a base for
ours definition of Cloud Print/Scan/Fax/Copy(???)
Glen
________________________________
From: Mell, Peter [mailto:peter.mell at nist.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 12:34 PM
To: Petrie, Glen; Grance, Tim
Subject: Re: Use of Cloud Computing Definition
Glen,
That sounds fine. Our work is in the public domain.
Best wishes,
Peter
Thanks,
Peter
Sent from my handheld
________________________________
From: Petrie, Glen <glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com>
To: Mell, Peter; Grance, Tim
Cc: Petrie, Glen <glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com>
Sent: Fri Apr 15 16:02:42 2011
Subject: Use of Cloud Computing Definition
Hello Peter and Grance
I work for EPSON and a member of the IEEE Printer Working Group (PWG).
The PWG is currently attempting to define Cloud Printing or better yet
Cloud Imaging. I was given the reference for your document defining
Cloud Computing. It was at exactly the right level for our definition.
As a first draft at our definition I literal changed "computing" to
"printing" (or printer). I also added a few print related items.
Please see my changes at
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/white/CloudPrintingDef_V01_-_A_Suggestio
n.doc
<ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/white/CloudPrintingDef_V01_-_A_Suggesti
on.doc>
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/white/CloudPrintingDef_V01_-_A_Suggestio
n.pdf
<ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/white/CloudPrintingDef_V01_-_A_Suggesti
on.pdf>
My Question: Is there a problem or do either of you have an issue with
the PWG using your Cloud Computing document as a base for our Cloud
Printing or Cloud Imaging definition? I really like the extremely
tight coupling to your Cloud Computing definition so that there is at
least some coherence in Cloud XXX.
Glen
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/cloud/attachments/20110418/82aac095/attachment-0001.html>